Slashdot Mirror
Large-Scale Study 'Shows Neonic Pesticides Harm Bees' (bbc.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader walterbyrd shared an article from the BBC:
The most extensive study to date on neonicotinoid pesticides concludes that they harm both honeybees and wild bees. Researchers said that exposure to the chemicals left honeybee hives less likely to survive over winter, while bumblebees and solitary bees produced fewer queens. The study spanned 2,000 hectares across the UK, Germany and Hungary and was set up to establish the "real-world" impacts of the pesticides... A growing number of studies have found evidence of a link between neonicotinoids and problems for bees... Data from this study has now been submitted to the European Food Standards Agency. EFSA's report on neonicotinoids in 2013 sparked Europe's temporary ban, and it is now preparing another comprehensive assessment to be released in November.
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
"The BBC adds that "Bayer, a major producer of neonicotinoids which part-funded this study, said the findings were inconclusive and that it remained convinced the pesticides were not bad for bees."
Then, why did 100% of my bees die within 24 hours after my upwind neighbor sprayed her farm with neonicotinoid pesticides?
That's right. We should totally trust the companies that made the fucking pesticides that have killed the bees to make pest-resistant crops that won't kill the bees.
Makes perfect sense.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Consider the american right wing is believing easily disproven outright lies at this point. It is annoying when they say "Evolution is JUST A THEORY" or "Blah blah blah, climate change is bad just like eggs and coffee were bad before they were good, amirite?" But they also believe violent crime is going up so we need to spend more on police and get tough on crime when in fact no, just no.
That has nothing to do with scientists being careful about their words, it's a stone cold fact that crime is at a historic low. No amount of forceful language on climate change is going to cause changes.
(And for the precious republican snowflakes upset because I'm picking on the right wing voting to waste my tax dollars on pointless law enforcement measures, yes sure fine liberals do it to. There are liberals who believe vaccines cause autism despite forceful language saying no they don't. There are conservatives who do to, and antivaxers aren't as damaging as tough on crime or climate change deniers, but we'll pretend for the moment it's a totally equal bipartisan thing.)
More specific counterpoint:
Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured.
Source
In sum, of 258 endpoints, 238—92 percent—showed no effects. (Four endpoints didn’t yield data.) Only 16 showed effects. Negative effects showed up 9 times—3.5 percent of all outcomes; 7 showed a benefit from using neonics—2.7 percent.
As one scientist pointed out, in statistics there is a widely accepted standard that random results are generated about 5 percent of the time—which means by chance alone we would expect 13 results meaninglessly showing up positive or negative.
You might as well publish a story that said. "Scientists prove that a casino die rolled 16 times came up a 4, 5, or 6, nine whole times. So dice are clearly all weighted to roll high. This is patently stupid.
Maybe neonicotinoids do kill bees, but this study sure doesn't show it. And whatever the effect is, it's pretty small.
Given how useful honeybees are to agriculture, there could be significant lobbying efforts to get rid of it. I'd expect California to ban them given their willingness to regulate responsibly, and the facts that almost all the almonds of the world are grown there and bees are required for it. Maryland has already banned them evidently.
Corporations should have to prove their product is safe when introducing such dangerous products. If there is a risk, they should have wait until cleared. To allow them to continue until they are proven harmful is patently stupid.
If you disagree, then you should be a guinea pig for every new chemical and not be allowed to stop until it has been proven with "scientific consensus" that your problem is actually what you claim it is.